The Global Orgasm for Peace was conceived by Donna Sheehan, 76, and Paul Reffell, 55, whose immodest goal is for everyone in the world to have an orgasm Dec. 22 while focusing on world peace.
While I'm not one of your constituents, your statements and actions often have an impact that reaches beyond your district. Yesterday you were quoted in several news media outlets as having called for the arrest of Christopher Soghoian, a PHD candidate at the University of Indiana Bloomington, because he created a web page that generates phoney airline boarding passes. As you are likely aware, your call was answered by the FBI who reportedly broke into Soghoian's house last night and seized all of his computer equipment.
I am a professional computer security researcher. I work for one of the worlds largest IT companies. My job involves finding vulnerabilities in software systems and getting them fixed. Responsible vendors are usually very responsive and willing to work with my team when we contact them with information about problems with their products. Through this process we are able to locate and repair vulnerabilities in IT infrastructure before the bad guys can find them and exploit them. However, there are always a few unsophisticated people who seek to shoot the messenger instead of dealing with the flaw.
Christopher Soghoian is one of the good guys. He is not a criminal and he is not enabling criminals. He did not create the vulnerability in the boarding pass screening process. This problem has existed for years, and it has been noted in other quarters, most recently by Sen. Chuck Schumer. However, the problem hasn't been fixed. Soghoian's website was intended to demonstrate how simple this is, and he has clearly and repeatedly stated that his intent in creating the site was to raise awareness about the problem so that it will be fixed. His website does not make this much easier than standard desktop publishing software available on anyone's personal computer.
Your call for his arrest, and the subsiquent events that have unfolded over the past 24 hours, have done serious harm to the national security of the United States. You could have simply contacted him, informed him of the legal problems that one could face for operating such a website, and discussed shutting it down. By choosing instead to prosecute him you are sending a message to security professionals in this country that if you observe a problem with national security policies or practices and make people aware of those problems in good faith so that they might be fixed, the government will treat you as an enemy and will prosecute you if possible. The inevitable result will be that people will hold their tongues, and problems will persist until they are discovered by someone who has malicious intent.
I strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this matter. The current course of action is not in the best interests of this country.
National Geographic often shows dual standards in the way it portrays women from different cultures. While they would never print a full-page picture of a topless 19 year-old Californian girl, they have no problems doing to with a native African woman. This practice has been called colonial and is, in a way, also censorship – although not made with black ink.
Pictures of western magazines censored by the Iranian government. I wonder how many copies of these come into the country and how many people they employ blacking out flesh?
There has been much debate in regard to my original Muhammad drawing. I contend that my perspective is equally as valid as the muslim perspective (even though I don't agree that Muhammad is holy). I also contend that these views can co-exist peacefully.
To show this, I am uploading 3 more drawings based on the first.
One of them is my attempt at a Muslim appeasing piece with the same message, only for a Muslim audience.
The second I hide Muhammad's face with a slice of cheese. This is a reference to an argument I made about a hypothetical cheese god. This is a more compromised view, where I'm still able to hold the position that he is not holy to me and yet do not depict the face. It is also a sarcastic jab at the demand for censorship.
The third is BLATANTLY offensive. There is nothing about it's message I agree with. Many of the arguments made on the first cartoon complained about how offensive it was. I upload this one for comparisons sake. And also, If I am being made to make concessions to how I wish to depict muhammad in the first place by creating a "holy" Muhammad, I feel that showing an "Evil" muhammad (which I also does not fit my view) balances this. I think the viewpoint expressed in this cartoon is somewhat disgusting. It is mean spirited and stupid. I don't happen to like it, and I also don't care for the "Holy" view.
Oh. The severed head is Nick Berg.
The cartoon debate flared up again. I made a set with different viewpoints.
